Legal Opinion

Pleasant v. Celli

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 7, 1993No. B062550PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BOREN, P. J.

An attorney was sued for allowing the statute of limitations to expire on his client’s medical malpractice claim. A jury found the attorney liable for malpractice, and assessed damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress against him as well.

On appeal, the attorney contends that the suit against him is barred by the statute of limitations. We conclude that the action was timely filed. He also contends that the award for negligent infliction of emotional distress is barred as a matter of law. Under the circumstances presented here, we agree, and modify the judgment…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Dillon v. LeggCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Molien v. Kaiser Foundation HospitalsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Thing v. La ChusaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Budd v. NixenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  5. Thompson v. County of AlamedaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Adams v. PaulCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Foxborough v. Van AttaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
  3. Marshall v. Gibson, Dunn & CrutcherCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
  4. Ovando v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  5. Miranda v. SaidSupreme Court of Iowa · 2013

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API